Family Tree vs New Family Search

Can someone please explain to me in simple terms the relationship of NFS to Family Tree? I was just getting into using NFS when I was told that NFS would soon be obsolete and Family Tree would take it's place.... Somehow that doesn't seem right...

zane

zaneclark wrote:Can someone please explain to me in simple terms the relationship of NFS to Family Tree? I was just getting into using NFS when I was told that NFS would soon be obsolete and Family Tree would take it's place.... Somehow that doesn't seem right...

zane

Family Tree will ultimately take the place of NFS. At the present time a selected group in Utah has been given full access and is currently reviewing the software. The rest of us have been asked to review it as we can and pass along suggestions by using the feedback link. One caution: Any changes you make in your data by using Family Tree will be reflected in NFS.

I don't have any information regarding when the switch will take place, but I would guess that it will still be a while.

Techgy wrote:Family Tree will ultimately take the place of NFS.

Is this really true? Or is it more that Family Tree will just be a more powerful, cleaner interface than NFS? Is it really true that you won't be able to access NFS directly anymore after some point? Or will NFS just remain the more basic interface to the same data?

mkmurray wrote:Is this really true? Or is it more that Family Tree will just be a more powerful, cleaner interface than NFS? Is it really true that you won't be able to access NFS directly anymore after some point? Or will NFS just remain the more basic interface to the same data?

I don't know exactly how this will happen or what the time frame is, but as I understand it there will be a switch at sometime.

Source: I contacted Caroline Rober, who serves as the training coordinator for our local regional FH center. Last Sunday evening we had her do a presentation for all the FH consultants in the stake and she covered in brief the Family Tree software.

mkmurray wrote:Is this really true? Or is it more that Family Tree will just be a more powerful, cleaner interface than NFS? Is it really true that you won't be able to access NFS directly anymore after some point? Or will NFS just remain the more basic interface to the same data?

Our own Russell Hltn expressed yet another opinion on this subject this morning on the FHCNET Yahoo list. I am no expert, but I wonder if it's too soon to tell. After beta testing FT, I hope it doesn't replace nFS--at least not in its present form. FT is very beautiful-looking. And the new list of ordinances is incredible. But it also seemed to take me several additional clicks to do basic tasks. And I felt like my vision was limited, if that makes sense... for instance, when I went inside a "folder" I couldn't still see the whole tree to provide context. Several times I found myself thinking, "It would be really nice if I could do x here ..." then I'd remember, "Oh, yeah, like nFS!"

It looks like FT might be geared toward users who are uncomfortable doing genealogy, to make it as simple as possible for them (and that's not a bad thing)... but maybe not so much toward users who are past the initial learning curve and who value efficiency in addition to beauty. I could be completely wrong, of course...

My 2 cents...

Kathryn

Kathryn wrote:It looks like FT might be geared toward users who are uncomfortable doing genealogy, to make it as simple as possible for them (and that's not a bad thing)...

I really do know absolutley nothing on this topic, but it just seems awkward that they would release NFS (which isn't even version 1.0 yet!) and then quickly replace it completely.

My thoughts were that perhaps they are two different types of interface to the same data, maybe even one a basic interface and the other a more advanced UI. It appears there is someone that agrees with me. Of course, it also appears I may have gotten the two mixed up, mistaking Family Tree as the more advanced interface, when it might be more likely NFS is designed this way.

Thanks for the input. And I agree with you, this whole theory is completely conjecture on our part...

mkmurray wrote:I really do know absolutley nothing on this topic, but it just seems awkward that they would release NFS (which isn't even version 1.0 yet!) and then quickly replace it completely.

My thoughts were that perhaps they are two different types of interface to the same data, maybe even one a basic interface and the other a more advanced UI. It appears there is someone that agrees with me. Of course, it also appears I may have gotten the two mixed up, mistaking Family Tree as the more advanced interface, when it might be more likely NFS is designed this way.

Thanks for the input. And I agree with you, this whole theory is completely conjecture on our part...

I totally agree. In fact I've sent in my own feedback and suggested that NFS not to put on the scrap heap. As has been said, we're not authorative on this matter and all I can do is pass along what I've been told.

I'm currently trying to get a few more details on the subject. However, I'd suggest that those who feel strongly about the subject use the feedback to express their concerns and suggestions.

Kathryn wrote:Our own Russell Hltn expressed yet another opinion on this subject this morning on the FHCNET Yahoo list.

Yes, I get around. :rolleyes:

In the long-term, "new FamilySearch" itself is just temporary. At some point everything will be integrated into "familysearch" and there will be no more "new".

My understanding from following the developers from a distance is that "Family Tree" is referring to a function/application. At this point nFS *is* all Family Tree and not much else. (However the phrase "Family Tree" doesn't appear in there anywhere. So many members have taken to using "Family Tree" to refer to what's found in Labs.) Labs is showing a newer version of FT being taken for a spin.

I think an examination of this forum's layout will help illustrate the point.

mkmurray wrote:I really do know absolutley nothing on this topic, but it just seems awkward that they would release NFS (which isn't even version 1.0 yet!) and then quickly replace it completely.

My thoughts were that perhaps they are two different types of interface to the same data, maybe even one a basic interface and the other a more advanced UI. It appears there is someone that agrees with me. Of course, it also appears I may have gotten the two mixed up, mistaking Family Tree as the more advanced interface, when it might be more likely NFS is designed this way.

Thanks for the input. And I agree with you, this whole theory is completely conjecture on our part...

I would certainly hope that we are not wasting our time teaching members how to use NFS only to have it replaced. I would hope that Family Tree is going to be an adjunct to NFS and not a replacement.

maybe the take-up of NFS has been that bad, that an easier to use, more simplified front-end is being released for the technically challenged?

zaneclark wrote:I would certainly hope that we are not wasting our time teaching members how to use NFS only to have it replaced. I would hope that Family Tree is going to be an adjunct to NFS and not a replacement.

Becoming familiar with NFS will not be a waste of time. Family Tree will ultimately replace NFS but when it does it will have all the functionality that NFS currently has and a few enhancements.

I would encourage everyone to learn all they can about NFS and also become familiar with the current capabilities of Family Tree.

Techgy wrote:I would encourage everyone to learn all they can about NFS and also become familiar with the current capabilities of Family Tree.

Good advice for some people. Unfortunately, most members of the Church cannot yet access NFS. But we're being patient....

zaneclark wrote:I would hope that Family Tree is going to be an adjunct to NFS and not a replacement.

Long-term, I can't see the Church maintaining two code sets that do essentially the same thing.

dannykos wrote:maybe the take-up of NFS has been that bad, that an easier to use, more simplified front-end is being released for the technically challenged?

It's a work in progress. I know of no one who claims to be anything else.

I know one change the church had to do was re-write the application in a different style. The old style (asp?) had the pages being created on the church servers. It worked, but the server load was too much. So they re-did it as a flash application to unburden the servers. I'm not sure if the current nFS is the burdensome app or not. I am fairly sure that's why Utah hasn't been put on yet. The Utah area is expected to be a least half if not more of the total server load. Since the temples are so close together, it would be difficult to have an extended roll by temple district. Too many from a non nFS temple district would be going to a nFS temple, etc. That's why it's been sent to the "Mission Field" to get refined.

RussellHltn wrote:. . . the server load was too much. So they re-did it as a flash application to unburden the servers. I'm not sure if the current nFS is the burdensome app or not. I am fairly sure that's why Utah hasn't been put on yet. The Utah area is expected to be a least half if not more of the total server load. Since the temples are so close together, it would be difficult to have an extended roll by temple district. Too many from a non nFS temple district would be going to a nFS temple, etc. That's why it's been sent to the "Mission Field" to get refined.

About the time the 5th temple went onto the original nFS, the servers crashed. I am pretty sure that nFS has unburdened the servers, but perhaps not quite enough.

I have been told that Family Tree is just the next version of nFS, so learning nFS will not be a wasted effort.

Glad to be of help from the "mission field" although, from what we hear, the "valley" has quite the reputation for interesting gospel interpretation. [grin]

From what I have heard newFamilySearch (nFS) was not able to grow as users were added, so a total rewrite was begun. The FamilyTree application at FamilySearch Labs is the attempt to rewrite the program so it would work with the larger user base that is expected when they add Utah, Idaho and eventually non Church members. I have used both newFamilySearch and FamilyTree and I do not see that FamilyTree is any faster. FamilyTree has a nicer pedigree interface but the folders applications need a lot of work to come up to the usability levels of nFS. The Flash applications work great in the pedigree views but are not working well in the folders and lists views, they run slower than the same functions in nFS. I don't see them taking down nFS until then can get FamilyTree to work at least as well as nFS. I would think both applications will be available for quite some time together before nFS is shut down. There has been very little development in the past year on newFamilySearch, all the effort seems to be devoted to FamilyTree. I don't think we will see any more improvements in nFS, FamilyTree will eventually replace it.

There are also several Certified Developers that interface with the newFamilySearch database and hopefully as more people start using those programs there will be less pressure on nFS and FamilyTree. RootsMagic now has the ability to print the Family Ordinance Requests for the Temple so people can now use RootsMagic to do almost everything they can do in nFS.

GarysTurn wrote:I don't see them taking down nFS until then can get FamilyTree to work at least as well as nFS.

Well, we are actually using nFS to prepare names for the temple and cannot go back to Temple Ready, so they have to keep it running for now.

I hope they are able to make Family Tree work. There is a lot of data to parse, and there are a lot of "parsers." I do not envy the developers trying to work the problem. But, I do hope for their success.

GarysTurn wrote:There are also several Certified Developers that interface with the newFamilySearch database and hopefully as more people start using those programs there will be less pressure on nFS and FamilyTree.

A nit-pick on the names. The developers use the Family Tree API. So it may take the pressure off of the "Family Tree" interface found in labs.familysearch, but "FamilyTree" is here for the long haul.

Adding to the conjecture about the relationship of newFamilySearch to Family Tree is the announcement that Family Tree now includes temple submission functions.

FamilySearch product management is pleased to announce that the Family Tree at FamilySearch Labs was recently updated. The latest updates now include all of the functionality required to prepare names for temple ordinances and print Family Ordinance Request (FOR) forms—the full “temple experience!”

Individuals with access to new.familysearch.org can access the Family Tree through labs.familysearch.org. It requires the same login and password as new.familysearch.org.



To try out the new functionality in the Family Tree, go to Folders, then the Summary tab. Under the new Temple Ordinances section, you can:

• Check for and resolve duplicates with ordinances (Always check this before clicking SUBMIT).
• Enter Ordinances Manually. If no ordinances appear yet you know when the work has been performed, click this link to report the ordinances.
• Submit the ordinances to your Temple Tracking Page. This simply reserves the name and ordinances on the Temple tab. You will need to click on the Temple tab at the top of the page to continue the temple process and print FOR forms, etc.

In the Temple tab you can:

• Print temple cards (Family Ordinance Request - FOR) if you want to perform the ordinances yourself.
• Assign names to the temple if you want the temple to allow someone else to perform the ordinances.

Remember that the Family Tree is operating off of the same database as new.familysearch.org. Any work done through the Family Tree application is recorded in the new.familysearch.org database.

To view or print this e-mail in PDF format, please go to: https://help.familysearch.org/kb/Local_ ... tmemos.htm

RussellHltn wrote: So they re-did it as a flash application to unburden the servers.

I hope that before all is said and done it will be independent from Flash. Hopefully HTML 5, CSS3, and other non-proprietary options will become viable alternatives to Flash.

jbh001 wrote:I hope that before all is said and done it will be independent from Flash. Hopefully HTML 5, CSS3, and other non-proprietary options will become viable alternatives to Flash.

Only if they see a need to change it again. I suspect it's using the Family Tree API, so it can be coded to be anything that works. But I doubt if they'll undertake a re-write without a pressing need. I think it's flash since that's what it needs to run.

RussellHltn wrote:A nit-pick on the names. The developers use the Family Tree API. So it may take the pressure off of the "Family Tree" interface found in labs.familysearch, but "FamilyTree" is here for the long haul.

You are right, newFamilySearch is actually called FamilyTree too, but no one calls it that. If you don't call it newFamilySearch some people don't know what you are talking about.

RussellHltn wrote:Only if they see a need to change it again. I suspect it's using the Family Tree API, so it can be coded to be anything that works. But I doubt if they'll undertake a re-write without a pressing need. I think it's flash since that's what it needs to run.

One of the problems with Flash is that despite being available for many operating systems, only the Windows version is up-to-date. The Mac, Linux, and other versions are all behind or lacking features of the Windows versions, which in turn diminishes the cross-platform usability of Flash.

For example: http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/08 ... tml&page=2

With Flash 8, released in 2005 just before the Adobe purchase, Macromedia decided to only build support for Flash content playback on the Mac within the web plugin or in the standalone player, and delegate Flash playback from within a PDF to QuickTime. By that time, Apple had given up trying to keep pace with the latest version of Flash, so users trying to view Flash inside a PDF could only play Flash 5 content.

...

The fact that Adobe has only delivered fair to poor Flash support for any platform outside of Windows is also a significant problem. While the company likes to rattle off the number of devices and operating systems that "support Flash," it hides the fact that few of those actually support the latest Flash 9, with many stuck at support for Flash 5, 6, or 7.

...

Outside of smartphones and PDAs, other non-PC devices that supposedly run Flash are often similarly outdated and buggy. The Sony PlayStation 3 (which uses the NetFront browser) and Nintendo Wii (Opera) web browsers offer "Flash support" that only works with content developed for older versions of Flash. The Xbox 360 does not ship with Flash support, and it sure looks as if Microsoft has no interest in providing it at any point in the future.

Adobe provides a Linux Flash Player 9, but it only works on 32-bit x86 machines, which rules out its use on 64-bit PCs, game consoles and desktops using PowerPC processors, or most devices running on ARM chips, although Nokia has adapted Adobe's Flash Player 9 for the Linux and ARM-based Internet Tablet 800.

Adobe's Flash support on the Mac also carries on the tradition of Macromedia's second rate support for platforms outside of Windows. While Macs have fewer problems playing modern Flash content than other platforms outside of Windows, the Flash plugin Adobe supplies for Mac users has significant problems with memory leaks and stability. Apple can't be pleased that Flash distracts from the overall experience of Safari and the Mac desktop.

This is why Apple has been aggressively moving away from Flash towards Javascript, HTML 5, CSS 3, Ajax, and such, because you don't have to depend on Adobe or anything else proprietary to get the functionality.

This is why I hope future applications from the Church will move toward non-proprietary options.

jbh001 wrote:This is why I hope future applications from the Church will move toward non-proprietary options.

You make good points and Apple's move to non-proprietary formats is admirable. They certainly are the trailblazer on this front, and we all know the Church doesn't prefer to be the one at the forefront of a trend.

In your non-proprietary suggestion, much of the functionality would likely have to be Javascript based, as that would be the only way to get the client-side loading advantages that Flash inherently offers (as this was suggested to be one of the primary reasons for rewriting NFS with this Family Tree application).

Anyway, we don't need to get way off topic with this discussion, or else it will need to be forked.

This correction was posted by Ron Tanner, product manager for Family Tree:

Family Tree (like Life Browser) is only the name of a labs project and not
the name of an internet site or product. Anyone with an account to new
FamilySearch can use this labs project as an experimental way to work with
data in new FamilySearch.
The site new FamilySearch is the only site that will provide tree creation,
temple reservation and ordinance duplication checking. This site will never
be called Family Tree even when it's interface is modified to look and
behave like the Family Tree project.
I hope this clears up any confusion between the labs project Family Tree and
the website new FamilySearch.

The comment regarding the fact that Family Tree does not do temple submissions is in conflict with a recent Email I received from FamilySearch Support.

"[font=&quot]FamilySearch product management is pleased to announce that the Family Tree at FamilySearch Labs was recently updated. The latest updates now include all of the functionality required to prepare names for temple ordinances and print Family Ordinance Request (FOR) forms—the full “temple experience!”

It would appear that Family Tree does indeed support temple submissions. The Email was received on: April 3, 2009.

[/font]

Techgy wrote:The comment regarding the fact that Family Tree does not do temple submissions is in conflict with a recent Email I received from FamilySearch Support.

"[font=&quot]FamilySearch product management is pleased to announce that the Family Tree at FamilySearch Labs was recently updated. The latest updates now include all of the functionality required to prepare names for temple ordinances and print Family Ordinance Request (FOR) forms—the full “temple experience!”

It would appear that Family Tree does indeed support temple submissions. The Email was received on: April 3, 2009.

[/font]

You are right, I participated in the beta test which tested Temple Submissions and side by side ordinance duplicate comparisons for Temple Submissions and that version has now been made public.

I also remember new.FamilySearch being called FamilyTree before the current FamilyTree project was ever added to the Labs site.

When I copy & paste from nFS, lots of garbage shows up--including incorrect parents on the sealing info. When I copy & paste from FamilyTree, I get . . . nothing! It doesn't do that. Neither is a viable option.

scion wrote:When I copy & paste from nFS, lots of garbage shows up--including incorrect parents on the sealing info. When I copy & paste from FamilyTree, I get . . . nothing! It doesn't do that. Neither is a viable option.

What operating system and browser were you using?

On some systems, there are two ways to do copy-paste: 1) Control-C and Control-V; 2) select some text, right-click, choose the "copy" option, move to the destination, right-click, and choose the "paste" option. Which method(s) did you try? Might the other method, if you have both available, help?

I'm using Firefox on Windows XP. I almost exclusively drag to select, then right click and paste. In FT, I cannot select data, so it cannot be copied & pasted.

I copied & pasted info into an email to a friend with whom I was discussing a particular person. It looked neat and like the website when I sent it to her & when she received it. However, in the course of our discussion, it came back in plain text as follows:


*Person identifier:* 9V35-WVX
Name Information Contributors
Name: Fred Tucker [url=http://javascript%3Cb%3E%3C/b%3E:;]<javascript:;>[/url] Disputed. Click for details Edit
Multiple [url=http://javascript%3Cb%3E%3C/b%3E:getMultipleContactInfo%28%27bookid=p.9V35-WVX&nameid=60000000-sim-_IRSvptjLoMulvtkvPOEIk&depth=2&ro=1%27%29;]<javascript:getMultipleContactInfo('bookid=p.9V35-WVX&nameid=60000000-sim-_IRSvptjLoMulvtkvPOEIk&depth=2&ro=1');>[/url]
Gender Information Contributors
Gender: Male [url=http://javascript%3Cb%3E%3C/b%3E:;]<javascript:;>[/url] Disputed. Click for details Edit
---------removed data------------
Event Information Contributors
Birth: about 1869 [url=http://javascript%3Cb%3E%3C/b%3E:;]<javascript:;>[/url] Disputed. Click for details
,, Indiana [url=http://javascript%3Cb%3E%3C/b%3E:;]<javascript:;>[/url] Disputed. Click for details Edit
Multiple [url=http://javascript%3Cb%3E%3C/b%3E:getMultipleContactInfo%28%27bookid=p.9V35-WVX&eventid=60000000-sim-QNWhd3LT0a3eiXnndxFhTV&depth=2&ro=1%27%29;]<javascript:getMultipleContactInfo('bookid=p.9V35-WVX&eventid=60000000-sim-QNWhd3LT0a3eiXnndxFhTV&depth=2&ro=1');>[/url]
Death: [Date and place not provided] [url=http://javascript%3Cb%3E%3C/b%3E:;]<javascript:;>[/url] Disputed. Click for details
Disputed. Click for details Edit
LDS Church Temple Records <[url=http://javascript%3Cb%3E%3C/b%3E:openDGDialog%28%27openpopup?dest=contactinfo&depth=2&contributorid=wkc.MMMM-MM8&submitterid=wkc.MMMM-MM8&bookid=p.9V35-WVX&assertionvaluegroupid=60000000-sim-FacUKq7ME0NMA8Yor1yjnF&ro=1]javascriptopenDGDialog('openpopup?dest=contactinfo&depth=2&contributorid=wkc.MMMM-MM8&submitterid=wkc.MMMM-MM8&bookid=p.9V35-WVX&assertionvaluegroupid=60000000-sim-FacUKq7ME0NMA8Yor1yjnF&ro=1[/url]', 700, 500, 'yes', 'yes');>


Individual Ordinances Baptism Ordinances may be needed <https://new.familysearch.org/en/action/openpopup?dest=splitpopup&depth=2&bookid=p.9V35-WVX&focus=p.9V35-WVX&ro=true#> All ordinances for this person are completed or not needed <https://new.familysearch.org/en/action/openpopup?dest=splitpopup&depth=2&bookid=p.9V35-WVX&focus=p.9V35-WVX&ro=true#>

* 8 August 2007
<[url=http://javascript%3Cb%3E%3C/b%3E:openDGDialog%28%27openpopup?dest=ordinancedetails&depth=2&bookid=p.9V35-WVX&ordid=60000000-sim-OCzAsDW9gFiPZPtUum_K4V&ro=1]javascriptopenDGDialog('openpopup?dest=ordinancedetails&depth=2&bookid=p.9V35-WVX&ordid=60000000-sim-OCzAsDW9gFiPZPtUum_K4V&ro=1[/url]',
750, 550, 'yes', 'yes');>
* Idaho Falls Idaho Temple
<[url=http://javascript%3Cb%3E%3C/b%3E:openDGDialog%28%27openpopup?dest=ordinancedetails&depth=2&bookid=p.9V35-WVX&ordid=60000000-sim-OCzAsDW9gFiPZPtUum_K4V&ro=1]javascriptopenDGDialog('openpopup?dest=ordinancedetails&depth=2&bookid=p.9V35-WVX&ordid=60000000-sim-OCzAsDW9gFiPZPtUum_K4V&ro=1[/url]',
750, 550, 'yes', 'yes');>
* Ready
<https://new.familysearch.org/en/action/openpopup?dest=splitpopup&depth=2&bookid=p.9V35-WVX&focus=p.9V35-WVX&ro=true#>

Confirmation

* 8 August 2007
----------------snipped data----------
Sealing to Parents * George Henry Blood

* Harriet Esther Hopkins

* 7 June 2008
<[url=http://javascript%3Cb%3E%3C/b%3E:openDGDialog%28%27openpopup?dest=ordinancedetails&depth=2&bookid=p.9V35-WVX&ordid=null&ro=1]javascriptopenDGDialog('openpopup?dest=ordinancedetails&depth=2&bookid=p.9V35-WVX&ordid=null&ro=1[/url]',
750, 550, 'yes', 'yes');>
* Rexburg Idaho Temple
<[url=http://javascript%3Cb%3E%3C/b%3E:openDGDialog%28%27openpopup?dest=ordinancedetails&depth=2&bookid=p.9V35-WVX&ordid=null&ro=1]javascriptopenDGDialog('openpopup?dest=ordinancedetails&depth=2&bookid=p.9V35-WVX&ordid=null&ro=1[/url]',
750, 550, 'yes', 'yes');>


Siblings Parents
Click for options <https://new.familysearch.org/en/action/openpopup?dest=splitpopup&depth=2&bookid=p.9V35-WVX&focus=p.9V35-WVX&ro=true#> Elmer Tucker Disputed. Click for details <https://new.familysearch.org/en/action/openpopup?dest=splitpopup&depth=2&bookid=p.9V35-WVX&focus=p.9V35-WVX&ro=true#> (1868-)
Disputed. Click for details Calvin Tucker Disputed. Click for details <https://new.familysearch.org/en/action/openpopup?dest=splitpopup&depth=2&bookid=p.9V35-WVX&focus=p.9V35-WVX&ro=true#> (1833-)
Disputed. Click for details Male
Click for options <https://new.familysearch.org/en/action/openpopup?dest=splitpopup&depth=2&bookid=p.9V35-WVX&focus=p.9V35-WVX&ro=true#> Fred Tucker Disputed. Click for details <https://new.familysearch.org/en/action/openpopup?dest=splitpopup&depth=2&bookid=p.9V35-WVX&focus=p.9V35-WVX&ro=true#> (1869-)
Male
Disputed. Click for details Disputed. Click for details Click for options <https://new.familysearch.org/en/action/openpopup?dest=splitpopup&depth=2&bookid=p.9V35-WVX&focus=p.9V35-WVX&ro=true#> Frank Tucker Disputed. Click for details <https://new.familysearch.org/en/action/openpopup?dest=splitpopup&depth=2&bookid=p.9V35-WVX&focus=p.9V35-WVX&ro=true#> (1869-)
Disputed. Click for details Disputed. Click for details

Disputed. Click for details Disputed. Click for details <https://new.familysearch.org/en/action/openpopup?dest=splitpopup&depth=2&bookid=p.9V35-WVX&focus=p.9V35-WVX&ro=true#> Isabela Burkett Disputed. Click for details <https://new.familysearch.org/en/action/openpopup?dest=splitpopup&depth=2&bookid=p.9V35-WVX&focus=p.9V35-WVX&ro=true#> (1836-1895)




*Contributor Contact Information*

*Contributor 1*
Contact name: LDS Church Temple Records <[url=http://javascript%3Cb%3E%3C/b%3E:openDGDialog%28%27openpopup?dest=contactinfo&depth=2&contributorid=wkc.MMMM-MM8&submitterid=wkc.MMMM-MM8&bookid=p.9V35-WVX]javascriptopenDGDialog('openpopup?dest=contactinfo&depth=2&contributorid=wkc.MMMM-MM8&submitterid=wkc.MMMM-MM8&bookid=p.9V35-WVX[/url]', 700, 500, 'yes', 'yes');> mockcontactname To request a membership correction click here <[url=http://javascript%3Cb%3E%3C/b%3E:openDGDialog%28%27../static/cmisrequestform.htm]javascriptopenDGDialog('../static/cmisrequestform.htm[/url]', 700, 500, 'yes', 'yes')>
Full name:

Mock Contributor

Telephone number:

123.456.7890

E-mail address:

mockcontactname@whatever.com <https://new.familysearch.org/en/action/openpopup?dest=multiplecontactinfo&bookid=p.9V35-WVX&eventid=60000000-sim-QNWhd3LT0a3eiXnndxFhTV&depth=2&ro=1#>

E-mail this contributor <https://new.familysearch.org/en/action/openpopup?dest=multiplecontactinfo&bookid=p.9V35-WVX&eventid=60000000-sim-QNWhd3LT0a3eiXnndxFhTV&depth=2&ro=1#>

Mailing address:

123 North MainNowhere, UT 87654 USA

Submitted by:

Mock Contributor

*Contributor 2*
Contact name: ecsherman2006665 <[url=http://javascript%3Cb%3E%3C/b%3E:openDGDialog%28%27openpopup?dest=contactinfo&depth=2&contributorid=u.MM3L-ZG7&submitterid=wkc.MMMM-MM8&bookid=p.9V35-WVX]javascriptopenDGDialog('openpopup?dest=contactinfo&depth=2&contributorid=u.MM3L-ZG7&submitterid=wkc.MMMM-MM8&bookid=p.9V35-WVX[/url]', 700, 500, 'yes', 'yes');> mockcontactname To request a membership correction click here <[url=http://javascript%3Cb%3E%3C/b%3E:openDGDialog%28%27../static/cmisrequestform.htm]javascriptopenDGDialog('../static/cmisrequestform.htm[/url]', 700, 500, 'yes', 'yes')>
Full name:

Mock Contributor

Telephone number:

123.456.7890

E-mail address:

mockcontactname@whatever.com <https://new.familysearch.org/en/action/openpopup?dest=multiplecontactinfo&bookid=p.9V35-WVX&eventid=60000000-sim-QNWhd3LT0a3eiXnndxFhTV&depth=2&ro=1#>

E-mail this contributor <https://new.familysearch.org/en/action/openpopup?dest=multiplecontactinfo&bookid=p.9V35-WVX&eventid=60000000-sim-QNWhd3LT0a3eiXnndxFhTV&depth=2&ro=1#>

Mailing address:

123 North MainNowhere, UT 87654 USA

Submitted by: LDS Church Temple Records

There are several problems with this:
1) On the website, nothing is disputed, but this makes it look like disputes exist.
2) The "parents" under the sealing info have no relationship whatsoever to this family.
3) Mock contact means what, exactly? (My friend wondered if that was an order, or an adjective?) It shows up even when claimed & granted legacies exist, but the program does not properly provide contact info.

Good news, though: None of these problems exist in FT because it doesn't copy, so it cannot paste.

Some of what you posted looks like HTML. Funny that copy-paste would be grabbing the actual HTML.

Part of why you're getting "Disputed" when no dispute exists is because newFamilySearch puts some text like that on the page whether or not it's actually going to show it. If it's not going to show the text, it colors it the same as the background or otherwise causes it to be invisible. I don't know why it does that.

Here's one workaround that hopefully wouldn't be too painful. Perhaps you could paste into Notepad or something similar first, manually sanitize it, and then copy from Notepad and paste to the real destination.

scion wrote:When I copy & paste from nFS, lots of garbage shows up--including incorrect parents on the sealing info. When I copy & paste from FamilyTree, I get . . . nothing! It doesn't do that. Neither is a viable option.

FamilyTree uses Flash and in most cases you can not select data in a Flash screen so you can copy and paste it. What I do if I need to copy some information from FamilyTree is to do a Screen Save and email that. To do a screen save, push the "Print Screen" button which is located one or two keys right of the F12 key on most keyboards. This will place a picture of the entire screen on the clipboard. Since this is an image you must paste it into an image program and save it as a jpg file before you can attach it to a email, it will not paste directly into an email. If you do not have PhotoShop or some other image editing program, you can always use "Paint" which is located in Start>All Programs>Accessories>Paint on Windows XP and Vista computers. Paste the image into the image editing program and then you can save the image, you can crop the image to just the information you need before saving in many image editing programs.

There are several free utilities that will automate the entire process so when you push the "Print Screen" key it automaticly saves the screen in a jpg file on your desktop. I use "Screen Shot Capture" to do this, it is a freeware program and works great, it even has the option to save a portion of the screen instead of the entire screen.

Thanks for the information, both about the hidden code showing & print screens with flash. Until everyone has access to the same info, this will be a problem. I find it easier to email info than to expect someone else to look up exactly what I did so we can discuss it. These sites do not lend themselves to searching very easily--one cannot compare all aspects of data from multiple individuals.

I'm seeing the Flash-based Family Tree at the labs site being very slow. While viewing a pedigree with 75 persons loaded and fewer than that on screen, just moving the mouse cursor around had about a second or two of lag, with my CPU maxed out. I sent feedback that the client side GUI needs some serious optimization.

While my computer is six years old, it's still plenty fast to run other Flash-based stuff very briskly. It's a 2.4GHz Pentium 4 "A" (Northwood, IIRC) with 1GB RAM (paging/swapping rates were flatline zero). RAM clock is 266MHz rate, which is slower than more modern hardware, but still not that terribly slow. OS is Mandriva Linux 2009.0 using Firefox 3.0.10 and Flash plugin 10.0.15.3.

Is anyone else seeing the GUI, particularly mouse cursor movement, being unusually slow with Family Tree?

Family Tree isn't as slow as newFamilySearch use to be. It would time out due to inactivity while supposedly "loading" the data. Good plan. Time out people after 10 or 15 minutes, but the data wasn't even available to look at yet. Family Tree and nFS are still absurdly slow, though. Both lack useful navigation tools to move around quickly, see 1/2 siblings, etc.

scion wrote:Family Tree isn't as slow as newFamilySearch use to be. It would time out due to inactivity while supposedly "loading" the data. Good plan. Time out people after 10 or 15 minutes, but the data wasn't even available to look at yet. Family Tree and nFS are still absurdly slow, though. Both lack useful navigation tools to move around quickly, see 1/2 siblings, etc.

The timing out at 10-15 minutes was server-side slowness. What I was mentioning today is client-side (user-side) CPU load. They're largely unrelated--except that you can sometimes trade one for the other.

I would hope the third-party applications would do a lot of local caching of data to eliminate much of the server-side slowness. Even the current Labs Family Tree eliminates a lot of server latency by caching data locally. As long as that can be done without making the client side too slow, then we'll have something fast enough to be fun to work with.

scion wrote:Until everyone has access to the same info, this will be a problem. I find it easier to email info than to expect someone else to look up exactly what I did so we can discuss it.

scion, don't know if this will help, but during recent beta testing I learned you can bookmark an individual in nFS using your browser's bookmark/favorite function... which means you should be able to email the URL to another nFS user so they can go directly to the person.

For example, here's the URL for Stillman Pond. If you click on it, you should be able to go directly to him:
https://new.familysearch.org/en/action/ ... BDX&svfs=1

On the cut-and-paste issue, I've also found it a little frustrating that one can't cut and paste in much of FamilyTree (there are a few areas that allow it, though I'd have to check to see what they were). I use cutting and pasting pretty regularly in nFS.

Kathryn

I had understood that for deceased people, the PID (Person IDentifier) in newFamilySearch is unique to one specific deceased individual and is common among all nFS users, so sending another user the PID should suffice to identify an ancestor. Bookmarking works, but a PID is shorter than an URL.

As I think has been described earlier in this thread, the lack of ability to cut-and-paste in the current Family Tree is a result of Family Tree being implemented in Flash. I too hope to be able to cut-and-paste in whatever version of Family Tree goes into production. Another option might be to try some of the third-party applications that use the new Family Search API. Worst case, capturing a screen-shot into an image file and running OCR on the image file might be somewhat workable.

Interesting. Nameless folks criticize me for being critical of a program (nFS) that does not work properly. Why attack a person providing feedback on a beta program that does not work? And I *have* given lots of feedback to the website. However, there is no indication that anything useful happens to it. One volunteer was so knowledgeable about the workings of the program that she told me it cannot operate on a laptop--go buy a desktop. This insight came after being on hold long enough to have my phone battery die, so I called in again on another phone.

Anyhow, PID and bookmarks only work when the others with whom I am communicating have access to the same software. They do not. Remember that this is only rolled out to the LDS in most of the US. Given that most of my family is *not* LDS, the current program provides no apparent method to share data in nFS with other active genealogists in my family. Waiting is fine, but the clock is ticking here. I'm nearly out of the "older" generation who might make useful connections or readily separate fact from traditions.

Just as another option, there are several third party clients (RootsMagic, FamilyInsight, Ancestral Quest, etc.) that have access to the nFS data and might offer better options to format and share the information with others.

http://www.familysearch.org/eng/affiliates/index.html

Because I think the direction this thread has taken is a good topic for discussion, I've started a new thread (http://tech.lds.org/forum/showthread.php?t=3148) to discuss the problem of sharing Family History data and to look for some possible solutions.

- Stephen